Is ABC ever permissable

[1ke]

ABC is morally wrong according to the RCC. However, other Churches, such as the EO Church allow exceptions. Why would the RCC want to unite with the EOC if they persist in teachings which are morally wrong, unless, perhaps there were some flexibility?

To bring them back to the Truth. The same conditions apply for reunifying with any group. The Anglicans who came into full communion with the Church-- some as entire parishes-- had to embrace the faith fully. Those in second or more marriages had to resolve their marital situation before being received.

You seem to believe that the Church would not be making ecumenical overtures if it were not prepared to compromise the Truth of the Faith for the sake of reunion. You could not be more wrong, and it would appear have not read any of the Church’s documents on ecumenism and unity.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Originally Posted by Blue Horizon
Tom if that ever happened it would only be in very rare cases - prob not the ones you are thinking of which are compassionately treated under private spiritual direction as is already adequately happening - and along the lines previously mentioned.

Tom I think you are confusing pastoral advice with moral principles. Not the same thing at all. Papal Encyclicals deal mostly in moral principles and are not often aimed at the man in the street but rather Catholic organisations and officials.

I cannot ever envisage the Pope ever publically coming out with a Papal Encyclical saying things akin to what you say above of Orthodox Priests.

Contraceptive acts are always wrong. The Catholic Church would never simplistically say/teach that contraceptive acts are no longer contraceptive just because the family is strapped financially.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

But did you **also **read that he is going to consult with a small group of Cardinals first to determine IF there can be any movement?

Ecumenism between Churches is not a time for lay people to debate possible options. There are serious theological issues that divide the Churches. Statements such as the OPs that try make pronouncements about how likely reunification may be are rash.

We “worry about it” IF and ONLY IF there is first movement by the Magisterium that changes how the teaching on marriage is communicated.

Corki relax. This is a discussion not an Inquisition.
If the Pope, himself a highly educated Cardinal, himself believes there may be room and publically says so…this itself is worth reflecting on by us lesser mortals. That is clearly what the Pope intended by even mentioning it in public.

By “having to worry about it” I did not mean we should be concerned. Personally I am quite secure in following the Church whichever way it may or may not go.

But it is something that the Pope is clearly raising for discussion both at the top and for reflection on at the bottom. That cannot be denied. What better place for Catholics to reflect together than on a Forum - why should it be taken off the table if the Pope put it out there?

 

[Tomdstone]

To be union, the EO would have to give up their false teachings on such matters.

When Catholics “dialogue” with Orthodox, which they have done many times, do the Catholics make it clear that the EO would have to give up their false teachings to be in union with the RCC?

 

[Tomdstone]

But it is something that the Pope is clearly raising for discussion both at the top and for reflection on at the bottom. That cannot be denied.

I thought that the infallible teaching of the RCC was that the marriage bond is indissoluble. Are you now saying that this infallible teaching is up for discussion? If so, then could not there be similar flexibility shown on noninfallible teachings such as ABC in extreme circumstances as alluded to above.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I thought that the infallible teaching of the RCC was that the marriage bond is indissoluble. Are you now saying that this infallible teaching is up for discussion? If so, then could not there be similar flexibility shown on noninfallible teachings such as ABC in extreme circumstances as alluded to above.

Tom I can see by your vehemence on this topic,along with others, that you are perhaps shooting from the hip rather than reflecting or researching as deeply as you could.

Even the NT shows that unfaithfulness may be an exception …though that doesnt necess mean the prev marriage was invalid.

Re contraceptive acts…you will never understand church teaching on no exceptions until you realise it is NOT about mere use of contr devices.

 

[Tomdstone]

Even the NT shows that unfaithfulness may be an exception …though that doesnt necess mean the prev marriage was invalid.

Are you implying here that it is possible to change the infallible Catholic teaching on the indissolubility of the marriage bond? And that there may be exceptions to this infallible teaching of the Roman Catholic Church?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Are you implying here that it is possible to change the infallible Catholic teaching on the indissolubility of the marriage bond? And that there may be exceptions to this infallible teaching of the Roman Catholic Church?

I think I am observing that pastoral norms/rules can change over time and sometimes they may even seem to contradict unchanging moral principles.

Thus all contraceptive acts are immoral but in some rare cases use of ABC may be licit. Prostitution is immoral but it may be acceptable for Christian countries to decriminalise it etc etc. They are linked but not identical spheres of human social living.

 

[Dorothy]

I can tell you that when you follow God’s will he will provide. I have 5 children two of which went to Catholic school and my parish paid the tuition since I could not afford it. So yes the church does step up and help.

Yes, we need to trust the Lord. I had eight children and four of them went on to college. One with a scholarship and 3 others with loans. The others are doing well and supporting their families as well. None of my grandchildren got an easy ride of full tuition and expenses, and they are better for it. (the paper routes, the baby-sitting, the snow shoveling, etc.)

 

[1ke]

When Catholics “dialogue” with Orthodox, which they have done many times, do the Catholics make it clear that the EO would have to give up their false teachings to be in union with the RCC?

Of course.

And those who have accepted this have come back in communion with Rome from Orthodoxy-- hence the Eastern Catholic Churches (save the Maronites who were never out of communion with Rome).

 

[Steveabrous]

I thought that the infallible teaching of the RCC was that the marriage bond is indissoluble. Are you now saying that this infallible teaching is up for discussion? If so, then could not there be similar flexibility shown on noninfallible teachings such as ABC in extreme circumstances as alluded to above.

It has been pointed out to you several times that the Pope is not getting a council together to change the teaching on Marriage, but rather to see if there is any room for change. In otherwords, to see if the teaching is indeed infalible. So, no if it is infalible it can not be changed.

 

[1ke]

However, if a teaching is carved in stone and cannot be changed, why would they want to set up a committee of cardinals to discuss the question?

the Pope has NOT set up a committee of cardinals to discuss or study what you are implying-- the Church’s teaching on divorce and remarriage or any sort of Eastern Orthodox understanding or allowance of divorce/remarriage.

There is no question and they are not “studying” any issue.

The Pope has set up a committee of cardinals to discuss reform of the Curia.

It seems that all of these things were mentioned in one article, and somehow people have put them together in their heads as related. They are not.

 

[1ke]

It has been pointed out to you several times that the Pope is not getting a council together to change the teaching on Marriage, but rather to see if there is any room for change. In otherwords, to see if the teaching is indeed infalible. So, no if it is infalible it can not be changed.

No Steve. The Pope has put together a council of cardinals to reform the Curia. This may include a review of the nullity process, which falls under the tribunal system and ministry in marriage and marriage formation.

This does not include any “study” of the teaching on marriage and whether or not it infallible.

He said divorce and remarriage is likely to come up when dicussing matrimonial ministry.

Oh the list of things the Pope never said are getting longer and longer.

 

[ahs]

Oh the list of things the Pope never said are getting longer and longer.

I wanted to laugh at this…but it’s too true to be funny anymore.

 

[ahs]

I admit to not reading through all the posts since I last posted, but how did it happen that suddenly ABC is dependent upon ecumism with the EOC??

Tomdstone, whether ABC is sinful or not is independant from talks of reunifying with the EO or whether they are permitted to partake in the Eucharist. ABC is not permitted either way in the Catholc Church, and it is an inherently sinful act. It’s that simple.

These side issues you bring up are irrelevant to that fact. They are interesting to talk about, but they do not provide any glimer of hope for anyone who is hoping that the Church will one day change its mind on contraception. The Church cannot change God’s Truth.

 

[maryjk]

I admit to not reading through all the posts since I last posted, but how did it happen that suddenly ABC is dependent upon ecumism with the EOC??

It is called grasping at straws.

Tomdstone, whether ABC is sinful or not is independent from talks of reunifying with the EO or whether they are permitted to partake in the Eucharist. ABC is not permitted either way in the Catholic Church, and it is an inherently sinful act. It’s that simple.

But, but, but, he is sure he can come up with a scenario that will “catch us.”

These side issues you bring up are irrelevant to that fact. They are interesting to talk about, but they do not provide any glimmer of hope for anyone who is hoping that the Church will one day change its mind on contraception. The Church cannot change God’s Truth.

 

[Steveabrous]

It is called grasping at straws. But, but, but, he is sure he can come up with a scenario that will “catch us.”

EXACTLY!!

 

[GloriaMaria]

The reason you see families this large frequently at the chapels of the SSPX, is that the married couples are told that the use of NFP is almost always a mortal sin. It is treated as “contraception”.

They would never, ever, consider ABC. But what you don’t understand is the difference in the perceived morality of using Natural Family Planning.

Everything to these couples is left to providence. It wouldn’t matter to this couple if she was exhausted, which no doubt she is. It wouldn’t matter if her doctor told her the next pregnancy could kill her. It wouldn’t matter if the husband had trouble paying the bills, and was too exhausted himself to help out with the kids at the end of the day. They would be told to offer up the joys and crosses, and most do.

I will leave the Catholic Morality of the advice of the SSPX to their married parishoners up to a priest, or someone with more knowledge than I of moral theology. But I’m telling it like it is. Been there.

It should be considered a basic fact to all Catholics that ABC is absolutely forbidden for contraceptive purposes. It is not allowed.

This family has a separate issue: whether or not it is permissable to use NFP. They are told no.

 

[Xantippe]

1. This is an SSPX chapel. SSPX is not the same as Roman Catholic. A family with 15 children at an SSPX chapel has obviously made no effort to space children, and probably has no interest in doing so. It makes no sense to draw conclusions about Roman Catholics based on the doings of a somewhat hypothetical SSPX family.
2. Biologically speaking, does it even make sense that the OP saw a mom in church with 15 children who was expecting a 16th? I know it’s possible for a woman to have that many pregnancies, but I don’t think you’d be simultaneously raising 15/16 children all at the same time. Even at the pace of 1 a year, that gives you a 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2 and 1 year old. Has anybody ever seen a family (even a smaller family of say 8 kids) with a consistent one year spacing? Me neither. By the time you had a 16th child, there would be at least several kids out of the house.

 

[Tomdstone]

1. This is an SSPX chapel. SSPX is not the same as Roman Catholic. A family with 15 children at an SSPX chapel has obviously made no effort to space children, and probably has no interest in doing so. It makes no sense to draw conclusions about Roman Catholics based on the doings of a somewhat hypothetical SSPX family.
2. Biologically speaking, does it even make sense that the OP saw a mom in church with 15 children who was expecting a 16th? I know it’s possible for a woman to have that many pregnancies, but I don’t think you’d be simultaneously raising 15/16 children all at the same time. Even at the pace of 1 a year, that gives you a 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2 and 1 year old. Has anybody ever seen a family (even a smaller family of say 8 kids) with a consistent one year spacing? Me neither. By the time you had a 16th child, there would be at least several kids out of the house.

I thought that SSPX was a Catholic group. Are they not Catholic or have they been excommunicated?